So I replied in this thread a bit earlier...and then I did the smart thing and decided to learn a bit more about the topic.
In sum, for a concept with so much literature written about it, Power remains a very difficult term to nail down. That said, it is far from a meaningless idea. Just because we cannot quantify intangibles like love and hate does not detract from their ability to make change in the world. Meaningless or not, Power is an idea and a term that has proven difficult to replace with something more precise and descriptive.
The thing about Power is that it only matters in relevant context. Quantifiable analogies like Energy to Physics or Money to Economy ultimately fail---there is no theory or practice or unit of measure that bounds a unit of 'Power' in all contexts. What is powerful in terms of one context or relationship is completely powerless in another. Military capability and capacity in one context is powerful...and yet economy, creativity, and perception are all supremely powerful in others.
Some define power as the ability to create or resist change. Others, to influence --- namely, the ability to do things and affect people to get the outcomes we want. There seems to be a commonality between many definitions of power in Motive and Context. Context is the medium or domain through which power is exercised, and motive is the will which desires an outcome. But the thing is...some believe that inanimate, intangible things also have power. This eliminates motive because inanimate things have no agency, meaning they are not people and cannot desire an outcome. There is something inherently relational to the idea of power, then...and context re-emerges in the forefront. Any time someone or something is labeled as having 'power', we must then ask, 'power to do what?' Further complicating the idea of Power is the notion of unintended consequences. Something can be powerful in a context entirely unknown to or misunderstood by the actor. There are specifics, in some international relations connotations, of who, what, how, where, and when. Behavioral definitions (not limited only to people) often judge power by outcomes determined AFTER the action. However, this isn't very helpful for policymakers or ER patients with minutes to live.
I can't help but wonder if currency is an attempt at quantifying power. In the stone age, whoever had the best quality and highest quantity of stone could make better tools and weapons (all other factors assumed equal - which I know they aren't)...and perhaps had the power to coerce or trade to their benefit. However at some point metals like bronze, then iron and gold came center stage for their malleable utility and ornateness. Post-industrial revolution you have coal...then oil...and for a time (perhaps still) uranium. All of these were mediums of power and influence that indicate a very transitory nature regarding power. The Stone Age did not end for lack of stone, and neither will the age of oil and gas end before they dry up.
All of these things share something - people thought they were important for a time. But the items themselves were meaningless without their relationship to people, events, and ideas. Relational power touts a few different aspects in its own right: commanding change, controlling agendas, and establishing preferences. If I can command change so that others act against their preferences, that is a certain aspect of power. If I can get them to prefer what I prefer...I don't need to command anything - which is another aspect. The third (agenda controlling) limits a person's options...or perceived options such that they choose something acceptable to me. This is all within the realm of relational power.
In any case...after much study and consideration, the weight of evidence still lends itself to the existence of power as a useful framework for the phenomenon of affecting change. I do not see Power as inherently good or bad, but something requiring awareness (self and organizational) and responsibility when wielding.
I hope this was in some smidge of a way as useful to you as it was for me to dig up!
Thanks for reading!
Jedi Knight
The self-confidence of the warrior is not the self-confidence of the average man. The average man seeks certainty in the eyes of the onlooker and calls that self-confidence. The warrior seeks impeccability in his own eyes and calls that humbleness. The average man is hooked to his fellow men, while the warrior is hooked only to infinity.
